|
|
|
borderline URCM - Comments on this moderation judgement please
|
|
|
I would have no problem with Matt's posts being rejected for being off-topic. But he usually posts in other people's threads with something relevant to that thread. I don't agree with this but the most important thing is that MattB is so boring that I simply don't care whether he is being victimised for being a boring whiny car-centric twat rather than being filtered for being boring whiny and car-centric in each individual rejected post. Sorry, I know that is wrong of me, but I just can't work up even the slightest flicker of indignation on his behalf. Guy
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The administrator has disabled public write access. |
|
|
|
borderline URCM - Comments on this moderation judgement please
|
|
|
Perhaps he thinks I'm such an easily influenced person that I have uncritically picked up the biases of some of the other moderators. But that hardly sits well with the idea that the moderation panel is full of my yes-men, nor with the plentiful evidence of my resistance to what I consider ill-founded views. Try and dispel you preconceptions about posters, take the posts at face value, without knitting ulterior motives and hidden agendas in-between the lines.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The administrator has disabled public write access. |
|
|
|
borderline URCM - Comments on this moderation judgement please
|
|
|
So in effect you are apparently saying, as a moderator of the group, you personally blacklisted him as you personally find him tedious and bounced the post on the name only without bothering to read the post. No, I'm not saying that at all. The only posts of Matt's I've personally canned were done according to the content and nothing else. Which were they then Pete? Message IDs will be fine, so we can judge your judgement.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The administrator has disabled public write access. |
|
|
|
borderline URCM - Comments on this moderation judgement please
|
|
|
So in effect you are apparently saying, as a moderator of the group, you personally blacklisted him as you personally find him tedious and bounced the post on the name only without bothering to read the post. No, I'm not saying that at all. The only posts of Matt's I've personally canned were done according to the content and nothing else. Which were they then Pete? Message IDs will be fine, so we can judge your judgement. Post any of these five not already posted: They are the only ones listed on the webpage. 30/11/2009 10:54:24 <
This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it
30/11/2009 10:55:16 <
This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it
30/11/2009 15:10:47 <
This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it
30/11/2009 17:52:57 <
This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it
09/12/2009 11:19:51 <
This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The administrator has disabled public write access. |
|
|
|
borderline URCM - Comments on this moderation judgement please
|
|
|
I would have no problem with Matt's posts being rejected for being off-topic. But he usually posts in other people's threads with something relevant to that thread. I don't agree with this but the most important thing is that MattB is so boring that I simply don't care whether he is being victimised for being a boring whiny car-centric twat rather than being filtered for being boring whiny and car-centric in each individual rejected post. Sorry, I know that is wrong of me, but I just can't work up even the slightest flicker of indignation on his behalf. Guy Have I ever said that *you* are an obnoxious twat of the first order? He likes to wallow in shit, then raise an almighty protest that he's covered in shit. It's terrible that all the shit sticks to him, when all he does is lie down in it, roll around in it, throw it up in the air and give it a good stir whenever an opportunity arises. Ian Smith on Chapman - October 20090
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The administrator has disabled public write access. |
|
|
|
borderline URCM - Comments on this moderation judgement please
|
|
|
I would have voted in support of a moderated group, but I had serious concerns over the model on offer, in particular that the selection process for moderators was not transparent or democratic. Brain still not on, I see. If you've a group beset by trollen then the trollen get a vote. That's not actually a Good Thing in a place where you want to be free of them. If you want to give them their democratic, transparent say then urc's not broken. In the meantime, keep on crowing in the slightly odd nasal tones of one who has removed their own nose for face-spiting purposes that it's much better to have nowhere to discuss UK cycling on usenet without subjecting yourself to abuse of trollen than somewhere which isn't 100% perfect. Pete.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The administrator has disabled public write access. |
|
Favoured: 0
Norwegian Minister of Justice did not sit at home and dived in the waters of the Arctic. I must admit that bad for the minister!
